Justin K. Scheer, Justin S. Smith, Peter G. Passias, Han Jo Kim, Shay Bess, Douglas C. Burton, Eric O. Klineberg, Virginie Lafage, Munish Gupta, Christopher P. Ames, The International Spine Study Group
Neurospine 2023;20(3):837-848. Published online September 30, 2023
Objective The goal of this study was to determine if patients with mild scoliosis and age-appropriate sagittal alignment have favorable outcomes following surgical correction.
Methods Retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter adult spinal deformity database. Inclusion criteria: operative patients age ≥18 years, and preoperative pelvic tilt, mismatch between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (PI–LL), and C7 sagittal vertical axis all within established age-adjusted thresholds with minimum 2-year follow-up. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-item Short Form health survey (SF-36), Scoliosis Research Society-22R (SRS22R), back/leg pain Numerical Rating Scale and minimum clinically important difference (MCID)/substantial clinical benefit (SCB). Two-year and preoperative HRQoL radiographic data were compared. Patients with mild scoliosis (Mild Scoli, Max coronal Cobb 10°–30°) were compared to those with larger curves (Scoli).
Results One hundred fifty-one patients included from 667 operative patients (82.8% women; average age, 56.4 ± 16.2 years). Forty-two patients (27.8%) included in Mild Scoli group. Mild Scoli group had significantly worse baseline leg pain, ODI, and physical composite scores (p < 0.02). Mean 2-year maximum coronal Cobb angle was significantly improved compared to baseline (p < 0.001). All 2-year HRQoL measures were significantly improved compared to (p < 0.001) except mental composite score, SRS activity and SRS mental for the Mild Scoli group (p > 0.05). From the mild Scoli group, 36%–74% met either MCID or SCB for the HRQoL measures. Sixty-four point three percent had minimum 1 complication, 28.6% had a major complication, 35.7% had reoperation.
Conclusion Mild scoliosis patients with age-appropriate sagittal alignment benefit from surgical correction, decompression, and stabilization at 2 years postoperative despite having a high complication rate.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Subject‐Specific Musculoskeletal Modeling: The Future of Predicting and Preventing Proximal Junctional Failure in Adult Spinal Deformity Nima Ashjaee, Alexa Semonche, Anthony L. Mikula, Laszlo Kiss, Dennis E. Anderson, Dominika Ignasiak, Stephen H. M. Brown, John Street, Sidney Fels, Samuel R. Ward, Christopher Ames, Thomas R. Oxland JOR SPINE.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Katherine E. Pierce, Peter G. Passias, Avery E. Brown, Cole A. Bortz, Haddy Alas, Lara Passfall, Oscar Krol, Nicholas Kummer, Renaud Lafage, Dean Chou, Douglas C. Burton, Breton Line, Eric Klineberg, Robert Hart, Jeffrey Gum, Alan Daniels, Kojo Hamilton, Shay Bess, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Christopher Shaffrey, Frank A. Schwab, Justin S. Smith, Virginie Lafage, Christopher Ames, on behalf of the International Spine Study Group (ISSG)
Neurospine 2021;18(3):506-514. Published online September 30, 2021
Objective To prioritize the cervical parameter targets for alignment.
Methods Included: cervical deformity (CD) patients (C2–7 Cobb angle > 10°, cervical lordosis > 10°, cervical sagittal vertical axis [cSVA] > 4 cm, or chin-brow vertical angle > 25°) with full baseline (BL) and 1-year (1Y) radiographic parameters and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores; patients with cervical [C] or cervicothoracic [CT] Primary Driver Ames type. Patients with BL Ames classified as low CD for both parameters of cSVA ( < 4 cm) and T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS–CL) ( < 15°) were excluded. Patients assessed: meeting minimum clinically important differences (MCID) for NDI ( < -15 ΔNDI). Ratios of correction were found for regional parameters categorized by primary Ames driver (C or CT). Decision tree analysis assessed cutoffs for differences associated with meeting NDI MCID at 1Y.
Results Seventy-seven CD patients (mean age, 62.1 years; 64% female; body mass index, 28.8 kg/m2). Forty-one point six percent of patients met MCID for NDI. A backwards linear regression model including radiographic differences as predictors from BL to 1Y for meeting MCID for NDI demonstrated an R2 of 0.820 (p = 0.032) included TS–CL, cSVA, McGregor’s slope (MGS), C2 sacral slope, C2–T3 angle, C2–T3 SVA, cervical lordosis. By primary Ames driver, 67.5% of patients were C, and 32.5% CT. Ratios of change in predictors for MCID NDI patients for C and CT were not significant between the 2 groups (p > 0.050). Decision tree analysis determined cutoffs for radiographic change, prioritizing in the following order: ≥ 42.5° C2–T3 angle, > 35.4° cervical lordosis, < -31.76° C2 slope, < -11.57-mm cSVA, < -2.16° MGS, > -30.8-mm C2–T3 SVA, and ≤ -33.6° TS–CL.
Conclusion Certain ratios of correction of cervical parameters contribute to improving neck disability. Prioritizing these radiographic alignment parameters may help optimize patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing CD surgery.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Current Concepts of Sagittal Alignment in Adult Cervical Deformity Zeeshan M. Sardar, Justin L. Reyes, Josephine R. Coury, K. Daniel Riew Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.2026; 34(2): e176. CrossRef
A systematic review and meta-analysis of sagittal cervical spine parameters: Normative values, correlation with quality of life, and biomechanical modeling Vinicius Ricieri Ferraz, Carlos R. Goulart, Tobias Alecio Mattei North American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ).2026; 25: 100819. CrossRef
Outcomes of Circumferential Minimally Invasive Technique Versus Open Technique in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery Patients Aged Older Than 80 years: A Propensity-Matched Analysis Peter Tretiakov, Kyriakos D. Chatzis, Mohammad Daher, Nima Alan, Dean Chou, Vivian Lee, Adam Kanter, Andrew K. Chan, Gregory Mundis, Juan Uribe, Kai-Ming Fu, Michael Wang, Neel Anand, David O. Okonkwo, Paul Park, Pierce Nunley, Praveen Mummaneni, Robert E Operative Neurosurgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical Outcomes Following Cervical Deformity Correction Alexa Semonche, Anthony L. Mikula, Justin K. Scheer, Vedat Deviren, Christopher P. Ames Clinical Spine Surgery.2025; 38(9): 466. CrossRef
Horizontal Gaze Assessment: An Extensive Narrative Review Sara Henao Romero, Julián Alfonso Sierra Peña, Roberto Carlos Diaz Orduz, Miguel Enrique Berbeo-Calderon World Neurosurgery.2024; 187: e1011. CrossRef
Lower Hounsfield Units at the Planned Lowest Instrumented Vertebra Is an Independent Risk Factor for Complications Following Adult Cervical Deformity Surgery Tyler K. Williamson, Ezekial J. Koslosky, Jordan Lebovic, Stephane Owusu-Sarpong, Peter Tretiakov, Jamshaid Mir, Pooja Dave, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, Bassel G. Diebo, Heiko Koller, Renaud Lafage, Virginie Lafage, Peter G. Passias Clinical Spine Surgery.2024; 37(10): E503. CrossRef
The Conceptualization and Derivation of the Cervical Lordosis Distribution Index Peter G. Passias, Tyler K. Williamson, Pooja Dave, Justin S. Smith, Oscar Krol, Renaud Lafage, Breton Line, Bassel G. Diebo, Alan H. Daniels, Eric O. Klineberg, Robert K. Eastlack, Shay Bess, Frank J. Schwab, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Virginie Lafage, Chri Spine.2024; 49(24): 1685. CrossRef
A Hierarchical Approach to Realignment Strategies in Adult Cervical Deformity Surgery Tyler K. Williamson, Jordan Lebovic, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, Bailey Imbo, Rachel Joujon-Roche, Peter Tretiakov, Oscar Krol, Claudia Bennett-Caso, Stephane Owusu-Sarpong, Pooja Dave, Kimberly McFarland, Jamshaid Mir, Ekamjeet Dhillon, Heiko Koller, Bassel G. Clinical Spine Surgery.2023; 36(3): 106. CrossRef
Reciprocal Changes in the Whole-Body Following Realignment Surgery in Adult Spinal Deformity Jae-Koo Lee, Seung-Jae Hyun, Ki-Jeong Kim Asian Spine Journal.2022; 16(6): 958. CrossRef
Do the newly proposed realignment targets for C2 and T1 slope bridge the gap between radiographic and clinical success in corrective surgery for adult cervical deformity? Lara Passfall, Tyler K. Williamson, Oscar Krol, Jordan Lebovic, Bailey Imbo, Rachel Joujon-Roche, Peter Tretiakov, Katerina Dangas, Stephane Owusu-Sarpong, Heiko Koller, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, Bassel G. Diebo, Shaleen Vira, Renaud Lafage, Virginie Lafage, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine.2022; 37(3): 368. CrossRef
Odontoid Incidence: A Novel Cervical Parameter Influencing Cervical Alignment From Top to Bottom Jae-Koo Lee, Seung-Jae Hyun, Ki-Jeong Kim Neurospine.2022; 19(2): 463. CrossRef
Defining Cervical Sagittal Plane Deformity – When Are Sagittal Realignment Procedures Necessary in Patients Presenting Primarily With Radiculopathy or Myelopathy? Venu M. Nemani, Philip K. Louie, Caroline E. Drolet, John M. Rhee Neurospine.2022; 19(4): 876. CrossRef
Classification(s) of Cervical Deformity Austin C. Kaidi, Han Jo Kim Neurospine.2022; 19(4): 862. CrossRef
Clinical Impact and Correlations of Odontoid Parameters Following Multilevel Posterior Cervical Fusion Surgery Jae-Koo Lee, Seung-Jae Hyun, Seung Heon Yang, Ki-Jeong Kim Neurospine.2022; 19(4): 912. CrossRef
Regional Anesthesia for Lumbar Spine Surgery: Can It Be a Standard in the Future? Jae-Koo Lee, Jong Hwa Park, Seung-Jae Hyun, Daniel Hodel, Oliver N. Hausmann Neurospine.2021; 18(4): 733. CrossRef
First
Prev
